Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Best way to learn Syriac for cheap or free?
#16
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:I was wondering if Judean was an Eastern dialect, because I'd read Janet Magiera describe it as such.

Aye, Judean ("Jewish Babylonian Aramaic") was a very Eastern dialect and closer to Syriac grammatically and vocabulary-wise. It was what survived as the dialect of legal discourse in Jewish tradition, and is what Talmud Bavli and the official Targums are written in.

borota Wrote:If you wanted to have any audience in ancient Greco-Roman times you'd better make sure you didn't y'all at all <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->. Sloppy speech had no place in public discourse.

Aye that's what the Judeans believed (and there are a number of anecdotes in Talmud Bavli that attest to this). That attitude was what ultimately corrupted the Galilean corpus due to lots of little "corrections" at the hand of Eastern Aramaic speaking scribes over a thousand years.

The Galileans, on the other hand, weren't language snobs and didn't squabble over things such as pronunciation in their theological discourses. In fact, they were bold enough to do things that shocked the Judean Pharisees, such as speak God's Name (Talmud Yerushalemi, Berakhoth, Chapter 3) without worry "for the study of the Torah is not susceptible to uncleanliness."
Reply
#17
And here's Charley being obstinately obtuse again... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Thirdwoe Wrote:[Where] do you see The Peshitta Aramaic New Testament at Steve's site?

One place (of several): <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.org/the-gospels/mark/mark-01/">http://aramaicnt.org/the-gospels/mark/mark-01/</a><!-- m -->

Click on any link labeled "Apparatus."

The Peshitta is listed under the siglum "P."

But you're already aware of this.

Thirdwoe Wrote:And the fact is, Steve can't say with any certainty, what dialect of Aramaic Jesus and His Apostles used as their main dialect.
Quote:When Steve answers "No", it certainly doesn't mean that his opinions are true.

I draw my conclusions (which are not unique) with strong confidence because I have worked in the field of Aramaic Studies in a professional capacity for nearly a decade and a half and am very well established in that field.

If you wish to talk about certainty and opinions: You're an armchair amateur who can't even read Aramaic without consulting a Strong's Concordance. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

When treating a serious illness, does one trust a practicing physician or something you google off of WebMD?

Thirdwoe Wrote:newly constructed dialect

This is the persistent claim that really has me baffled. I mean completely baffled. Galilean Aramaic is an established dialect family within Western Aramaic with a significant corpus ranging from funerary inscriptions, mosaics, and graffiti in the first few centuries to entire works during its renaissance in the 3rd-6th (such as the larger of the two Talmuds). To say it's "newly constructed" is a rejection of reality. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Peace,
-Steve
Reply
#18
Steve, I was talking to Dylan there, but, since you spoke up, I have some questions for you...tell us what published printed source text was used for the "P" text in the apparatus there? I assume you know the answer. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

And what text does your interpolations come from exactly?

Did you use that "P" text there, word for word, while converting its words into the dialect you think might have been used by Jesus and His Apostles in the 1st century, or are you just replacing the English text out from the Greek source text it used?

As for you knowing better because you have worked in the field, doesn't mean you can at all be certain that your opinions are correct, no, Steve, they remain mere assumptions.

There is no real evidence that Jesus and His Apostles spoke the dialect you think it was, and since the Aramaic words found in the 1st century Greek NT text and the 1st century Aramaic NT text agree nearly identical, there is no reason not to believe Jesus and His Apostles used the same words found written there.

Can you show us any NT manuscript that was ever written in the Aramaic dialect you say Jesus and His Apostles must have used?

Did God see fit to have the actual words they spoke written down anywhere by His People? And if so, why didn't He see fit to preserve them in His Holy Scriptures?

Rather, I see that we have them right here in The Aramaic Holy Scriptures, which match up with what is found in the Greek version, where they are sometimes left un-translated in the text.

Jesus said "my words will not pass away", but, it seems that you think they did pass away, and have not been preserved through all these centuries.


.
Reply
#19
Thirdwoe Wrote:since you spoke up, I have some questions for you...

Congratulations Charley!

Due to asking virtually the exact same questions for the 100th time, you now have your very own FAQ over on AramaicNT.org:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://aramaicnt.org/charleys-faq/">http://aramaicnt.org/charleys-faq/</a><!-- m -->

Subsequent askings will merely be referred to by number from now on and neglected overly-asked questions shall be added as necessary -- and then referred to by number. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Peace,
-Steve
Reply
#20
Now we are getting somewhere, Steve. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

We see then, that NO, you don't have The Peshitta on your site. Nor, are your GD interpolations coming from its text. I told you I had read through your website before but couldn't find The Peshitta text anywhere on it and the reason is.... it isn't there.

What I DO see there though, in the apparatus, is this text:
"Syriac Gospel according to Mark, text as per British Foreign Bible Society edition courtesy of George A. Kiraz."

No...that isn't The Peshitta text, Steve, as you must know...it differs in many places from The Peshitta's text, with a number of added verses and 5 added books, which were never present in The Peshitta text as it originally existed, it also has many spelling variations of places and persons to what they were originally given as.

Also, your statements here below from your Matthew comments section, are telling.

Steve Caruso
January 9, 2014 at 11:24 pm
Oommen,
There are several versions ?in Aramaic? that exist (several in Syriac and several in Christian Palestinian Aramaic), but I have neither of those in any readily email-able format. You can read one of the Syriac versions (the Peshitta) online here: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/">http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/</a><!-- m -->, however Syriac is a very different dialect than that which Jesus spoke and is not the base form that I am using for my work here.

Peace,
-Steve

Steve, The Peshitta IS The Aramaic New Testament, Period....while all other NT texts that exist in Aramaic, are versions of its original, one of a kind text. There is only one Peshitta text featured at Dukhrana.com...and it isn't the USB/BFBS version that you use, nor the SP or the C versions of the Gospels, which have been recently added for comparison.


.
Reply
#21
Thirdwoe Wrote:it differs in many places from The Peshitta's text

Can you show me any differences between your True Peshitta? and what's presently used in the apparatus? I'm quite curious. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Thirdwoe Wrote:Steve, The Peshitta IS The Aramaic New Testament, Period.

See #5.

Peace,
-Steve
Reply
#22
Quote:Can you show me any differences between your True Peshitta? and what's presently used in the apparatus? I'm quite curious. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Any difference? There is a variation of the two texts in Mark 1:17

Your GD interpolation for that verse doesn't match the Peshitta's text exactly, but rather, goes with the way it is presented in the UBS/BFBS version of its text...and the English translation there doesn't say the same thing as Jesus is recorded as saying it in the Aramaic NT.

And Steve, it's not my true Peshitta, it is THE TRUE PESHITTA. The one which doesn't have the added books, and added verses which came into the later versions of its original text via a particular Greek text.

Steve, which NT given in Aramaic do you say is The True Peshitta? You know the various versions of The Peshitta out there...so, which version do you say IS The True Peshitta...you can't have 5 or more True Peshitta's when they all differ in their text and content. Would you say that the UBS/BFBS version of the Aramaic NT, is The True Peshitta, since that is what is found in your apparatus section?

.
Reply
#23
Thirdwoe Wrote:Any difference? There is a variation of the two texts in Mark 1:17

Given your fervor, this is kinda funny actually. Can you point out this variant in the Syriac and explain it to everyone here reading along? They'll find it hilarious too. Lay them out side-by-side, please. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

I'd hazard to guess that all you did was scan through Dukhrana, comparing the standard Peshitta text there to the Khabouris transcription until you found something that didn't seem to match up visually. However, all it did was point out a prime example of why you do not have the experience to be taken seriously with any textual matters. This seals it. You do not even have a remedial grasp of Syriac orthography, its variations and implications, and what you (now at least) claim constitutes a "textual variant" seems to only be consistent when it's convenient for you. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Had dam?alel baqe uvala` gamle, en? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Thirdwoe Wrote:And Steve, it's not my true Peshitta, it is THE TRUE PESHITTA.

Show me a manuscript that doesn't have variants. This time you don't get to set the bar or threshold as to what "counts" as a variant, given your "example" in Mark 1:17. To be consistent, any variation now counts and invalidates the manuscript.

(Spoiler alert: You cannot.)

There is no One True Manuscript? or One True Version? in any tradition. That's a fantasy. An idol. They do not exist. This is the nature of manuscripts and hand copying and even with the invention of the printing press -- and yes, even digital media -- it's a problem that has not been eliminated.

And to harp upon baqe in this fashion misses the gamle; the `aba* for the ilane.

(*Granted Jesus would probably have used horsha, but I digress. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> )

Otherwise, when in doubt, FAQ #5.

Peace,
-Steve
Reply
#24
Steve,

You asked for "any difference" in the apparatus you have there, with The Peshitta Text. and I showed you a difference. It is a variation in the text. There are about 7 differences in the two texts in Mark 1.

No Steve, A scribal mistake in a True Peshitta Manuscript, does not make it any less a True Peshitta, any more than a mis-labeled shift nob renders a 57 Chevy any less a true 57 Chevy.

It seems like you don't know what a True Aramaic New Testament really is then?

Let me help you out here...A True Peshitta is The Eastern Text of The Holy Aramaic New Testament, which isn't altered by any later revised Western Syrian Orthodox readings, and which doesn't have the added W5 books, which has now come into the Western version via the Greek text.

The Eastern Peshitta Text, IS The Original form of The Aramaic New Testament. Period.

You can't have more than one Original Text if the others don't have the same readings and the same books. An original is the way it was from the start, and that is what The Eastern Peshitta Aramaic New Testament is. The Original Text of The Aramaic New Testament. It has been preserved by the Providence of God, and hasn't been altered.

You don't have to believe it for it to be so, Steve. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

When I want to have a real Les Paul Guitar, I get a Real Les Paul Guitar...I don't get a cheep knock off from China, which might look like a real Les Paul Guitar on the surface, and pretend and tell people that I have a real Les Paul Guitar, when I know it's not the same thing, some guy might, I suppose, but not me, but if they show it to one who knows what a real Les Paul Guitar is, then they get busted.

All the Eastern Manuscripts, and The Eastern Peshitta printed texts that I have looked at here for Mark 1:17 all have the same reading there. If you are planning on using the USB/BFSB version, then you are not using The Real Aramaic New Testament text...The Peshitta, but a knock of version of its text, with later additions and many variations to its original text, including the W5 books.

And just FYI, I have photostatic copies of the manuscripts and printed texts here on my shelf to check each word out. I have found a few mistakes at Dukrahna for the Khabouris transcription, so, I always make sure I check the Manuscripts and printed texts of the Eastern Text to make sure.


.
Reply
#25
Steve,

I perused through your web site and found out a couple of things that I think are somewhat not factual.

1) "It is a movement that first gained traction with the works of the late George Lamsa, and is primarily a position popularized by individuals within the growing Messianic Judaism movement in North America as well as the official position of the Assyrian Church of the East."
official position of the Assyrian Church of the East: that's not quite so. Based on my interactions with Assyrian churches in Chicago (a few years back when I used to live in Chicago), I could say it's more of mother to child transmitted tradition than an official position. And it's more of a generic assertion something that goes like "this is the language that Jesus spoke". The tradition it is used as argument to motivate children to learn and not give up on their Aramaic inheritance. As such you can have even in Chicago, well established church leaders who believe Greek is the better text of the Bible and use Greek based Bibles for church Bible studies. Whether you believe the tradition or not, has no bearing on your standing in the church - so it's not an official position.

It's more sophisticated/educated people like Lamsa, Mar Eshai Shimun or Paul Younan that take the tradition at its face value and end up arguing (with quite some compelling arguments) for Peshitta Primacy. Paul if you see this, please chime in, but as an outsider observer, that's what I could see.

2) You are somewhat lambasting Peshitta: "Note how the Peshitta renders ?swords? (in the plural) rather than ?sword.? This is very curious..." What it seems curios to me is you using that as contra-argument honestly. Almost every grammar I read says that dots were added later. So that could be translated as either sword or swords. Do you have any other information that I don't have, or am I missing something there?

3) Nun vs. Yod for imperfect. Is that the only thing that puts Peshitta centuries later? You know "by the witness of two or three..." I would like to know more witnesses, if you can refer me to, that would be appreciated. Given the great similarity between Nun and Yod at the start of the word, myself as beginner I stumble still at times and interchange the two. So it's not outside of the realm of possibility for me, for Yod to morph into Nun over time, and still have an older base text, if it should have been Yod indeed in the first place.

I would like to see some pertinent arguments for Peshitta not being what Paul here claims to be, I think what you have posted is quite limited to persuade somebody otherwise. Unless you add the "consensus" in the mix, but consensus is many times just everybody repeating something that somebody who managed to make themselves look like an authority, has decreed.

For me Peshitta Primacy is not a matter of faith, so my faith would not be shattered if it turns out indeed Peshitta is not the original language in which Bible was composed. What you have posted on your site seems quite thin to me though, to persuade me that it was written in something else.
Reply
#26
Thirdwoe Wrote:No Steve, A scribal mistake in a True Peshitta Manuscript, does not make it any less a True Peshitta, any more than a mis-labeled shift nob renders a 57 Chevy any less a true 57 Chevy.
vs.
Thirdwoe Wrote:One can keep adding things to an original 57 Chevy, and changing things out that they want it to have, but it alters the original 57 Chevy and renders it something else. When a guy wants to have a real original 57 Chevy, he looks for one that has not been altered or revised.

So which is it and who determines what is a "change" vs a "mislabeling"?

Your goalposts need nailing down before they run away again.

Thirdwoe Wrote:It seems like you don't know what a True Aramaic New Testament really is then?

I know a True Scotsman when I see one. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Your metaphor falls short, given the nature of the differences between manuscript traditions. Orthographical variants (the majority of all textual differences in any language) aren't actual differences. Amar na vs amarna is color vs. colour.

Quote:And just FYI, I have photostatic copies of the manuscripts and printed texts here on my shelf to check each word out. I have found a few mistakes at Dukrahna for the Khabouris transcription, so, I always make sure I check the Manuscripts and printed texts of the Eastern Text to make sure.

So you're an armchair epigrapher now, too? <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Peace,
-Steve
Reply
#27
borota Wrote:1) [...] it's not an official position.

Quote:"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Mar Eshai Shimun
by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East
April 5, 1957

http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html

It's a position expressed by Eshai Shimun in the capacity of his office as head of the CotE. These aren't equivocal words.

On it's face, it's safe to call a spade a spade.

However, in the interests of being as accurate as possible, would it be better that I simply quote this verbatim instead of calling it an "official position"?

Quote:2) [...] dots were added later. So that could be translated as either sword or swords.

If the transmission of the Peshitta is indeed "perfect" as most Primacists claim, then the Seyame is correct.

But let's assume that the text is fallible (which is what you're implying) whether it is singular or plural, the pun of "sword" vs. "in the end" does not work in Syriac; only in Jewish Aramaic.

Finally, there is not a single Peshitta witness that expresses the singular. All witnesses outside the Peshitta attest to the singular, however, and it is the singular where the pun works.

In similar manner to "Rabbouli," the Peshitta stands alone, against the best explanation.

Quote:3) [...] Is that the only thing that puts Peshitta centuries later?

Certainly not. It's simply something that is easy to explain to the layman.

There are a number of grammatical and vocabulary considerations as well, but they are more difficult to explain without a background in the relevant languages and when I have the time to find more elegant ways of expressing them I'll be putting them up on that page, too.

Quote: it's not outside of the realm of possibility for me, for Yod to morph into Nun over time, and still have an older base text, if it should have been Yod indeed in the first place

Then the implications of that require that the Peshitta has been revised over time. Even the Eastern tradition.

This is another point which many Primacists categorically reject despite the contradiction of doing so.

Quote:For me Peshitta Primacy is not a matter of faith, so my faith would not be shattered if it turns out indeed Peshitta is not the original language in which Bible was composed.

That gives me relief, as it is a reasonable position.

I encourage you to keep up with the updates to the site over the next year or so. I have a lot more material to write up.

Peace,
-Steve
Reply
#28
Steve,
Even if you just put that quote up, it would still not be "correct". Given the background that most people have, background shaped by the Roman-Catholic teaching about the infallibility of the pope and such. Even though he was the head of the church, that is not an official "doctrine" of the church. Even then and even now many leaders in the church don't believe that to be accurate and for most leaders it doesn't even matter - their attitude is somewhat like don't you have anything better to fill your time with than arguing about such things <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->. If it were a doctrine/an official position, that would have been decided by more than one person, in an official setting like a synod or such.
Reply
#29
borota Wrote:Steve,
Even if you just put that quote up, it would still not be "correct". Given the background that most people have, background shaped by the Roman-Catholic teaching about the infallibility of the pope and such. Even though he was the head of the church, that is not an official "doctrine" of the church. Even then and even now many leaders in the church don't believe that to be accurate and for most leaders it doesn't even matter - their attitude is somewhat like don't you have anything better to fill your time with than arguing about such things <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->. If it were a doctrine, an official position that would have been decided by more than one person, in an official setting.

So, in your opinion, how should this quote be contextualized?

Peace,
-Steve
Reply
#30
English is not my primary language and also I am not part of the Church of the East but still let me give it a shot.
I think more accurate would be something along the lines of a tradition in the Church of the East (or Assyrian Church of the East, as it is called now) that Peshitta is written in the language that Jesus and his apostles spoke.

Or you could consult with Paul if he is willing, I came across posts of his on this forum in the past where he also stated in un-equivocal terms that Peshitta Primacy i not an official position of the church. Which is in line with what I could also find out when talking with the priests from the patriarchal see in Chicago. In fact why not contact them directly: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.margewargis.com/">http://www.margewargis.com/</a><!-- m -->

Or another very educated person, a pleasure to interact with if you can get a hold of is the head priest at <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.standrewsassyrianchurch.com">http://www.standrewsassyrianchurch.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)